Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== 1. Your core physical picture — atoms and bound electrons as geometric boundary sinks/sources for EM wavefronts, with each photon–electron exchange contributing to the local “update” of the 3-D state (decoherence/time arrow) — dovetails naturally with quantum optics (dipole coupling, decoherence rates), radiation-momentum transfer (Poynting flux → force), and null-congruence focusing (Raychaudhuri + TμνkμkνT_{\mu\nu} k^\mu k^\nuTμνkμkν). That part is physically sound and worth formalizing: it explains time asymmetry and local clocks in geometric language, and it correctly places decoherence and thermodynamics at the heart of becoming-classical. ===
# The stronger claim — that the photon ↔ electron boundary process is the origin of gravity and inertia in the full Newton/Einstein sense — faces immediate quantitative and conceptual obstacles. The energy/momentum budget required to reproduce Earth-level gravity via ordinary radiation processes is impossibly large, EM interactions are generically charge/polarization dependent (threatening universality of free fall), and phase/sign issues arise (Bjerknes/Hooke type objections). To survive these walls the idea must be embedded in an emergent or induced gravity framework (e.g., Sakharov-type, vacuum response, coarse-grained stress-energy) with precise mathematical rules that show how microscopic EM exchange yields an effective universal coupling. Below I unpack the details.